monster_mothersfandomcom-20200214-history
Meyer, Cheryl. Mothers Who Kill Their Children.
This book compiles and analyzes research on murdering mothers to better understand the motives, situations, and contexts in which filicide or infanticide occur, as well as the social reaction and stigma to "monster mothers." Annotation Meyer, Cheryl and Michelle Oberman. Mothers Who Kill Their Children: Inside the Minds of Moms from Susan Smith to the Prom Mom. New York: NYU Press, 2001. Print. Quotes and Notes ...from Introduction “Historians of infanticide cite a host of factors associated with the incidence of this crime: poverty, overpopulation, laws governing inheritance, customs relating to nonmarital children, religious and/or superstitious beliefs regarding disability, eugenics, and maternal madness. This broad range of explanations for the act of a mother killing her child suggests that infanticide takes quite different forms in different cultures.” (1) “Specifically, infanticide may be seen as a response to the societal construction of and constraints upon mother...The crime of infanticide is committed by mothers who cannot parent their child under the circumstances dictated by their unique position in place and time.” (emphasis mine 2) Greco-Roman context: “Parents of deformed or small newborns were ordered to take their offspring to a mountain or other exposed area and leave them there overnight. If they were still alive in the morning, they were permitted to live.” (3-4) Lamott thinks about doing this to her baby when she is particularly frustrated with him Arabic context: “To spare their child a life of misery, mothers frequently disposed of their female babies.” (4) Medieval-Victorian England context: “For example, the commonplace nature of sexual harassment against women employed as domestic servants fostered a perverse and tragic link between sexuality, pregnancy, and infanticide.” (9) “Throughout European society, the link between illegitimacy and infanticide was so widely acknowledged that, to a large extent, infanticide was considered a crime committed exclusively by unmarried women...historians speculate that married women who committed infanticide generally avoided punishment.” (10) “Until the start of the twentieth century, the Judeo-Christian world seems to have understood infanticide as a crime committed by desperate and/or immoral women. The twentieth century introduced a dramatically new lens through which to view the crime--that of illness.” (10) “..two French psychiatrists...posited a causal relationship between pregnancy, childbirth, and subsequent maternal mental disorder.” (11) The emergence of the concept/diagnosis/pathologizing of postpartum depression? This discovery/labeling and association with mental illness (which, granted, has its problems erases social factors contributing to this outcome, like poverty, social standing/class, constructions of motherhood, domestic pressures/abuses, etc.) led to lessened charges, “probationary sentences and healthcare interventions rather than prison sentences” (11) The push and access to mental health seems like a really positive aspect of this medical association Though this occurred largely in France/England/European contexts “Americans have been far less sanguine with regard to the adoption of a medical model for understanding infanticide.” (11) But Americans all agree on postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum mental health issues and the one most commonly linked with infanticide --> “They who experience hallucinations and other symptoms of postpartum psychosis are severely sleep-deprived and emotionally labile.” (12) Can’t this describe all new mothers though? Or any mother with a newborn child? “Single parenthood in the context of a fragmented community and in the absence of an extended family means that all the tasks of parenting must be borne more or less alone. This scenario is challenging for all, but particularly for those lacking the inner resources to withstand the enormous pressures of parenting a young child. Among those who are particularly vulnerable as single, isolated parents are those who have survived abusive childhoods.” (14) “...these cases involved mothers who suffered from some degree of mental trauma, yet neither case can be explained or excused on the basis of postpartum mental illness alone. Instead, sociocultural and economic influences such as disability, substance abuse, and unresolved trauma combined with the pressures associated with being the sole caretaker for an infant prefigure the infants’ deaths.” (17) “Most contemporary societies view infanticide as a uniform crime. I may be treated either as a manifestation of illness or as a manifestation of evil…” (17) Murdering mothers/women as either "mad" or "bad" only ...from Chapter One Social beliefs and perceptions about what “kind” of mother can/does kill her children; homogenizes a large and extremely complex collection of women from different contexts. “On a scholarly level, most researchers have continually referred to mothers who kill their children as a homogeneous group with little differentiation among the women. However, even a cursory review of cases makes it clear that there are at least two groups which can be distinguished from each other: mothers who commit neonaticide, killing their newborns, and mothers who commit other forms of filicide, killing their child.” (19-20) “A typology is needed so that people can begin to understand the many reasons for the occurrence of infanticide.” (20) I worry that this, as with any labeling system, would lead to an oversimplification of the many aspects of filicide; possible erasure of the women “in between,” or the reduction of a typology (no matter how complex and detailed) into a binary or more easily managed system by the media/public/even researchers themselves. Resnick broke it down into “two general types of cases, filicide and neonaticide. He then divided filicide into five categories, namely, acutely psychotic, altruistic, unwanted child, accidental, and spouse revenge.” (21) Resnick’s typology is outdated, poorly supported from an empirical, scientific standpoint, and has be largely discredited but, just for fun: Acutely psychotic: Andrea Yates, Helen Grady ([http://monster-mothers.wikia.com/wiki/Climax_Studios._Silent_Hill:_Origins. SH:O]), Agave, Mom ([http://monster-mothers.wikia.com/wiki/McMillen,_Edmund._The_Binding_Of_Isaac. The Binding of Isaac]) Altruistic (mercy-killing): Sethe, Hester ([http://monster-mothers.wikia.com/wiki/Parks,_Suzan-Lori._The_Red_Letter_Plays. Fucking A]) Unwanted child: Mother/Beldam, Hester ([http://monster-mothers.wikia.com/wiki/Parks,_Suzan-Lori._The_Red_Letter_Plays. In the Blood]) Accidental (often result of long term abuse): Rebecca Shuttleworth, mom from Nancy Grace story Spouse revenge: Medea, Margaret Garner (real-life Sethe; suggested) “As psychologist P.D. Scott has argued, Resnick’s system ‘relies heavily on motivation which is always highly suggestive and often over-determined, or defensive...Direct observation of murderers suggests that the majority commit the offense when their higher controls of discretion, reason, sympathy, and self-criticism are more or less in abeyance, and when they are in fact acting at so primitive a level that such sophisticated motives as revenge and altruism may be quite inappropriate. Passion and need are commonly accepted as precursors of, or even mitigating factors for, crime, but the importance of long-continued states of indecision and suspense are often overlooked. Yet it is stress of this continuing sort which is most likely to undermine defences [sic], and to uncover actions which are more familiar to ethologists [sic] than to psychopathologists. Inexplicable murders and destruction brought about in this way tend to be wrongly diagnosed “depression” or else a new label such as “catathymic crisis” or “autonomous affective crisis” is invented, often with complicated psychodynamic interpretations of what may simply be facilitation of primitive reactions by prolonged frustration and indecision.’” (23) Scott’s female specific typology: “With battering mothers, the filicide occurred due to an impulsive act characterized by loss of temper and the immediate stimulus arose from the victim. Mentally ill mothers included those who suffered from psychosis, depression, and personality disorders. Neonaticides and retaliating women were classified the same way as Resnick had done - child as impediment to growth/progression of the mother, latter - spousal revenge. Passive neglect or active aggression killed unwanted children. Mercy killings represented cases in which the victim was really suffering and the mother obtained no secondary gain by the death.” (24) “Suicidal women were only found in the altruistic group. Altruistic motives included mothers killing their children because they saw themselves as the victims of an incestuous rape and/or believed the children would be better off dead.” (26) “Interestingly, Alder and Baker found the mothers’ desire to care for their children reflected in the detailed instructions they left in suicide notes regarding the child’s burial and/or the extensive preparation the mothers undertook in order to insure that their homicidal efforts were successful.” (27) “Wilczynski found that two of her categories exclusively or almost exclusively reflected male motives. These were retaliatory and jealousy/rejection. Similarly, there were three categories that exclusively or almost exclusively reflected female motives. These were: unwanted child; psychotic parent; and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy...Wilczynski suggested that the difference in gender motives might reflect exaggerations of social roles.” (30) “indicated, ‘It is critical to note at the outset that it is not the fact of mental illness or disability alone, but rather the combination of a vulnerable mental health status and social isolation that leads to infanticide. My analysis...explores the intersection of social isolation, mothering, and mental health.’” (30) Meyer and Oberman offer a typology with five categories that is not based on motives or intent, but the patterns associated with the crime, including social, cultural, environmental, and individual variables. “''Filicide Related to an Ignored Pregnancy''. The women in this category either denied or concealed their pregnancies. All of them committed neonaticide.” (36) “''Abuse-Related Filicide''. This category includes mothers who killed their child during a physical assault...the purpose of the assault was not to kill the child. Often the alleged purpose...was discipline.” (37) “''Filicide Due to Neglect''. These mothers did not purposely kill their child but either failed to attend to the child’s basic needs or were irresponsible in their reaction to the child’s behavior...subdivided into neglect-omission and neglect-commission, respectively.” (37) N.O. - Baby in a hot car. N.C. - Shaken baby syndrome. “''Assisted/Coerced Filicide''. We included a case in this category if the mother killed the child, or if her partner--generally a romantic partner--did the killing and the mother was charged with murder.” (37) “''Purposeful Filicide and the Mother Acted Alone''...Originally we divided it into two types, purposeful filicide with and without mental illness...However, most of these women had not been officially diagnosed, either because a diagnosis did not exist or because the woman did not have or did not seek assistance from a healthcare provider.” (38) Data set of 219 cases: 37 Neonaticide 15 Maternal Abuse 76 Neglect 12 Assisted/Coerced 79 Purposeful ...from Chapter Two (Denial of Pregnancy) Situational variants consistent with other contemporary US neonaticides: “Biancuzzo age 19, her marital status single, the apparent absence of her baby’s father, her failure to acknowledge she was only 4-5 months pregnant; assumed labor pains to be signs of physical illness and disclose her pregnancy to others of family’s judgment, and the fact that she endured labor alone are all factors common to the overwhelming majority of the cases in this study.” (40) Neonaticide defined as “death by homicide within the first twenty-four hours of life.” (41) “Some contend that the causes for neonaticide reflect biological or evolutionary imperatives, in other words, that there is a capacity for neonaticide is [sic] built into human genetic design.” (42) Interesting thought. Almost like the rabbits in Watership Down reabsorbing the bunny fetuses when they know they won’t be able to feed them. This idea can get scary when related to the a-hole government figure who said that women can just absorb the rape baby again and “shut it down” if it was “truly” a rape. The thought of biological/evolutionary wiring that allows neonaticide to happen as a means of self-preservation seems kind of powerful though. Just like some women know, absolutely know, that with some pregnancies they must get an abortion because it will be too dangerous or too difficult for them to birth and care for that baby. Not that either of these decisions would come easily and wouldn’t create ambivalent feelings, but there is some power in determining what happens to your body and knowing what is best for yourself. “...as suicide rates increase, so do national neonaticide rates. Lester concludes that this means that neonaticide is more closely associated with self-destructive rather than with homicidal impulses.” (42) Killing a baby because the mother feels she must kill herself and knows that the child cannot survive without her alive and caring for them. Self-punishment because they cannot handle the guilt experienced over what they have done (like the mom in The Bad Seed). “Research suggests that neonaticide is not a premeditated act, but rather an act committed in the face of intense emotion such as shock, shame, guilt, and fear. As Alder and Baker have noted, ‘It would be inappropriate and unenlightening to depict these events as moments of anger or rage or eruptions of extreme uncontrolled aggression. These scenarios do reveal the burden of responsibility for contraception that is borne by women in our society, and the continuing negative consequences for young women of single parenthood.’ Severe mental illness is unusual...their problems appear to lie in the realm of relationships, access to resources, and sense of self.” (43) “Increasingly violent means of death occur as the children get older. However, Smithey has noted that the risk of fatal injury actually decreases with each additional day of life.” (45) “Psychologists note, ‘The woman’s sense of self is too damaged for her to care about another human being. Self becomes damaged not simply because trauma occurs but also because an absence of social supports and an inability to rely upon others in times of need lays the foundation for the message that self is unimportant.’...In sharing their convicted of murder advice about how to prevent other women from making the same mistakes that they did, 45 percent of the interviewees stated that programs for enhancing self-esteem are greatly needed.” (45) “It is quite possible that the media selects girls...because they are the least likely to come to mind when we think of mothers killing their newborns. Because they were relatively affluent, attractive young white girls from seemingly ‘good’ families…This implies that neonaticide is somehow understandable, if not excusable, when committed by poorer, more desperate women, or for that matter, a woman of color.” (47) 36/37 women were single --> “This most consistent of factors linking all the cases is, ironically, almost entirely ignored by both the media and the criminal justice system. Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of the media coverage is the lack of focus on and discussion about the males who impregnated the women concerned.” (48) “...the complete absence of any healthy psychological and physical bonds between the mother and the child...distinguishes the act of neonaticide from all the other types of filicide.” (54) “Furthermore, many of the girls come from religious and familial backgrounds wherein abortion is unsupported and condemned as murder. Oberman argues that these factors can lead to an inner conflict and profound sense of ambivalence among many girls, causing them to procrastinate rather than making a difficult decision. As the pregnancy progresses, they continue to put off the decision about what to do and come to ignore the fact that no decision has been made.” (55) “These fears reveal common themes about the extent to which an unwanted pregnancy might be perceived as a threat to one’s entire social system, and might lead both a young woman and those around her to collaborate in the denial of a pregnancy.” (57) “The authors note that women bear an inordinate proportion of child care responsibilities, economic distress, and social isolation as parents. They suggest that neonaticide is deeply rooted in the dominant social constructions around womanhood and motherhood, and the route to preventing this crime lies in working to restructure the conceptual frameworks about women.” (57) “‘Evidence suggests that a relationship exists between the availability of abortion and neonaticide.’ In other words, regions with limited abortion access for pregnant women have higher rates of neonaticide than do other areas.” (61) “We live in a society in which abortion is legal, but infanticide remains an unthinkably horrible crime.” (62) “Kaplan and Grotowski have advocated that the next edition of the DSM should include the diagnosis ‘Adjustment Disorder with Maladaptive Denial of a Physical Condition.’...Thinking of the neonaticidal woman’s act through this lens then allows us to consider how to provide help instead of punishment. Though some may argue that it is remiss not to treat neonaticidal women harshly, a strong argument can also be made that our nation’s uneven and unfocused handling of these women thus far reveals our profound uncertainty regarding the extent to which they are blameworthy.” (65) “In thinking about the prevention of neonaticide, it is important to point out once again that neonaticide is rarely a premeditated act...Therefore, it seems somewhat unlikely that drop-off boxes will be a viable alternative for many young women. In fact it may very well lead to further stigmatization. As such, the focus on detecting pregnancy and preventing neonaticide remains of critical importance.” (66) Honestly, if people protest women’s health clinics, I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t camp out by these too and harass people. Need education and medical/psychological intervention instead of “aftercare” ideas. “Social institutions and the professionals who run them have failed to acknowledge the patterned nature of this phenomenon, and have sought instead to haphazardly blame such crimes solely on the individuals who commit them.” (67) ...from Chapter Three (Purposeful Killing) “At the trial, she Smith was portrayed as either a manipulative woman or an emotionally damaged adolescent.” (69) “However, Smith and most of the other women assigned to this purposeful category did not deny the existence of their children, and were quite removed from any postpartum effects. This leads to speculation as to why and how these women were capable of committing such heinous acts. Generally, two lay theories are proposed: the mother must be ‘mad or bad.’” (69) “Women portrayed as ‘mad’ have been characterized as morally ‘pure’ women who by all accounts have conformed to traditional gender roles and notions of femininity. These women are often viewed as ‘good mothers,’ and their crimes are considered irrational, uncontrollable acts, usually the directs result of a mental illness.” (69) “...women characterized as ‘bad’ are seen as the complete antithesis of the ‘mad’ woman. They are depicted as cold, callous, evil mothers who have often been neglectful of their children or their domestic responsibilities. Viewed as not having conformed to societal standards of ‘proper’ female behavior, these mothers are often portrayed as sexually promiscuous, nonremorseful, and even nonfeminine.” (69-70) So Susan Smith as “manipulative” would mean she’s “bad.” Susan Smith as “damaged” would mean she’s “mad.” Think about Casey Anthony and the focus on her partying, “unmotherly” and “uncaring” behavior, and the emphasis on how much she smiled during the trial. She was shown as “bad” through and through, versus someone like Andrea Yates who, arguably, did something much worse (5 kids vs. 1) and yet, everyone was trying to find a reason/excuse for her “irrational” behavior. “It became clear that there was no way we could create exact definitions of purposeful filicide with mental illness and purposeful filicide without mental illness. In fact, purposeful filicide appeared to be a continuum, not a dichotomy, with many exceptions and no rules.” (73) “Green’s case illustrates one aspect of the dilemma inherent in the dichotomy of ‘mad versus bad.’...If the murders were impulsive acts, they could be construed as the product of mental illness. However, the prolonged poisoning of her husband would seem more calculated and less the product of illness.” (75-76) “Snyder explained that she felt like she was having an out of body experience and like a demon had taken over her body. When she realized what she had done, Snyder called 911, claiming her daughter had fallen from the kitchen counter.” (76) This is similar to Andrea Yates story. She evoked religious ideology and then called the police after she had completed the crime, waited for the arrest, and went passively to the police station. “During a routine follow-up examination, Snyder told a midwife that she had feelings of anger toward her daughter and resented not having time for herself.” (77) “Snyder testified during her trial that only two weeks after her daughter was born, she started to have feelings about wanting to harm her baby. She indicated, however, that she kept those feelings a secret because she was ashamed and did not want anyone to think that she was a bad mother.” (emphasis mine, 78) “Is it possible that the court held maternal biases against Snyder which ultimately led to her conviction? Snyder’s statement that she was reluctant to publicly disclose the negative feelings she had toward her child because she did not want anyone to think she was a bad mother, are typical of most women suffering from postpartum disorders. These sentiments may reflect social constructions of motherhood, which often place extreme demands and pressure on women who experience negative feelings toward their newborns.” (79) In portraying mothers who have any negative thoughts towards/about their children as monstrous and bad leads to an inability to discuss these feelings in a healthy way or a nonjudgmental environment, which ultimately makes it multiply and produce monstrous behavior. (It becomes a self-fulfilling stereotype.) “In general, society views women as innate nurturers who are expected to remain joyful and happy during their pregnancy and throughout motherhood. Consequently, when new mothers like Snyder experience negative emotions they often suffer in silence, coping with the shame and guilt that often accompany such feelings.” (79) “One of the most striking features of this category, which sets the women in this group apart from the other mothers discussed in this book, is the overwhelming number of cases involving multiple deaths of children.” (86) “In 37 percent of cases involving multiple killings, mothers chose fire as a primary mode of death...This phenomenon is unique to the mothers within the purposeful filicide category...In their minds, the fire may have been a final attempt to exert some control over what had been an otherwise powerless existence. Since fires usually cause irreparable damage and considerable destruction, these women were able to destroy all tangible remains of their children’s lives, and at the same time dictate how their bodies would be handled in death...a fire is a far more passive method of killing stabbing or drowning.” (87) “Close to 42 percent of women in this category had experienced a recent failed relationship, separation, or divorce prior to the murders were having custody battles...the majority of mothers within this category were married...Although women are remaining single for longer periods of time, there is still societal pressure on them to marry. Consequently, by divorcing or ending a relationship, many of these mothers may have felt they were violating a socially imposed gender norm.” (88) “At first glance, the mothers within this category seem like premeditated murderers who violently killed their children. However, upon deeper examination one of the most distinctive features of these women’s stories was their devotion toward their children.” (89) “Culture and ethnicity played a significant role within this category, particularly as they related to immigrant women. A large number of immigrant women were represented, compared to the other subtypes discussed in the book.” (90) “More than half the mothers within this category either attempted to or were successful in killing themselves as well as their children.” (90) ...from Chapter Four (Maternal Neglect) “Undoubtedly, child neglect has been the most common type of reported and substantiated maltreatment of children throughout the last two decades.” (97) “With such disproportionate numbers of children in the custody of their mothers rather than their fathers : 4%, it is easy to see why women rather than men are the ones usually charged with child neglect.” (98) “The 76 cases that formed the basis for this chapter involved mothers who did not purposely kill their children. Rather, the child’s death was the result of two possible scenarios referred to as acts of omission or commission. In omission-based neglect, mothers failed to attend to the basic needs of their children, such as adequate nutrition or a safe environment with proper supervision.” (emphasis mine, 98) “Overall, the prevailing theme within neglect-omission cases was inadequate supervision. As the cases were reviewed, six predominant methods emerged in the children’s deaths.” (99) --> Fire, Automobile Suffocation, Bathtub Drowning, Layover Suffocation (mother rolling on top of the baby, many when they fell asleep while nursing the child), Nutrition, Inattention to Safety Needs “The second type of neglect is referred to as commission-based neglect. In this type of death, mothers were irresponsible in their reaction to a child’s behavior and their actions brought about the death of the child...All these cases involved the mother’s attempt to stop the child’s crying.” (emphasis mine, 101) “As the cases were reviewed, two predominant methods emerged in the children’s deaths.” (102) --> Direct (“...shaking the baby, slamming the baby’s head into the side of the bed, throwing the child across the room, or hurling the baby out the window”), Indirect (“...result of suffocation when the mother placed something over the child’s head” or in its mouth to muffle crying) “The first reaction to the acts described above is usually that of disbelief and outrage. Typically, the next reaction is one of the condemnation of the mother as we contemplate what might have led her to commit such unbelievable acts.” (102) Honestly, that’s how I responded to the story of the mother putting toilet paper in her baby’s mouth. I felt sad and sick afterwards, and angry that she would do something that dumb/irresponsible. The only thing I could empathize with her was about the fact that she “tried for three hours to quiet the cries” of her baby (101). “In general, the mothers in this category are young, single, have large families, are lacking in social support systems, and are of lower socio-economic status. Moreover, they have received fewer years of formal education, may suffer from depression, and may possibly use alcohol or other drugs.” (103) “Jennie Bain Ducker was clearly unable to give the needs of her children equal or greater priority than her own perceived needs.” (104) “Most of these women went straight from the developmental stage of adolescence to parenting with little, if any, time to establish a solid sense of self. The demands of parenting were so great for this group of mothers that after their children were born, they had limited opportunity to continue to grow personally.” (104) “Many of the cases involved a parent’s pursuit of personal interests over responsible parenting behaviors. It is important to point out that young fathers typically do not face such conflicting desires as they rarely serve as the primary caretakers of their children.” (105) “Many studies illustrate that neglectful families tend to be larger, with more children in the home than non-neglecting counterparts. In practical terms, more children in the family means that there are more mouths to feed, dishes to wash, clothes to buy, teeth to brush, visits to health facilities when the kids are sick, teachers to confer with when problems arise at school, and on and on. All these familial responsibilities take away from the mother’s ability to replenish her depleted psychological energy, and as indicated previously, this may affect her judgment.” (110) “But in general, we found that feelings of isolation from peers and disenfranchisement from society were consistent themes in the group.” (110) “First and foremost, one might presume that disenfranchised mothers do in fact require more support than mothers who enjoy the benefits of privilege. Alternatively, maltreating mothers may seek to avoid contact outside their families as a way of preventing others from detecting their unsatisfactory parenting skills, thereby contributing to increased feelings of isolation...they may perceive themselves to be bad mothers. For instance, they likely internalize the disapproving looks they receive from more privileged individuals in society who pass judgment on them when they are unable to access healthcare for their sick children or are unable to purchase their children winter hats, an unaffordable luxury.” (111) “In general, maltreating parents have less formal education than nonmaltreating parents.” (112) “There was substance use and abuse in 34 percent of the cases. The use of illicit substances has been strongly implicated in the occurrence of child neglect. In fact, of the psychiatric disorders that have been studied, substance abuse disorders appear to be the most commonly associated with the maltreatment of children.” (114) “Tragically, her Henderson’s two-month old son, whom she was breastfeeding, died after drinking breast milk that was laced with the drug. Her defense attorney argued that she took the drug because she reported that she became so worried that she might fall asleep and be unable to care for her baby and two other children, and that there was no one to assist her with seemingly endless responsibilities.” (114) After being interrogated by police and having her apartment (which was provided by public housing) examined for signs of neglect and abuse, following the death of her daughter who choked on a cockroach (part of an ongoing pest/rodent infestation) when it climbed into her mouth: “In an editorial written in response to actions taken by the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services, friends of the Young family wrote, ‘In suburbia, the finger-pointing in a tragedy like this is settled discretely. In the projects, the mother is grilled by the police and the dead child examined for signs of abuse or neglect. Most white suburban children achieve their success as the produce of generations of ready access to the privileges and rewards of American society. Most African-American families are starting from ground zero in this generation.’” (116) On a possible daycare/parental education model that could function as a possible solution/aid: “Mothers in the group would be informed that babies cry extensively when they are newborns, and that this crying can often be very frustrating, so much so that they may experience a desire to suffocate or shake their baby. Rather than condemning mothers for such ideas, these thoughts would be validated and normalized by the group facilitator and probably by other mothers in the group. Appropriately, education on effective ways of handling such stressful situations would then be provided.” (119) “In such a program, any mother identified as being at risk for neglecting her children would have the option of being paired off with a more experienced volunteer mother. These types of pairings could provide struggling mothers with a personal resource for discussing parenting concerns, but more importantly, would provide that mother with individual attention and companionship during stressful times. Such interactions can help decrease the mother’s sense of social disconnectedness.” (120) “As mentioned above, the information provided should focus not solely on safety awareness and parenting skills, but also on self-care information for overwhelmed parents.” (121) As we analyze the complex life experiences of these women from the perspective of privilege and power, it becomes quite clear why these crimes occur and why it is easier to perceive that it is ‘them’ and not ‘us’ who could unintentionally kill their children.” (122) ...from Chapter Five (Abuse-Related Deaths) “Women who abuse their children have received scant research attention. In part, this may be due to definitional issues. For example, a fine line often distinguished abuse from neglect. In addition, there are clear ethnic and cultural variation regarding what constitutes acceptable disciplinary practices and what is abuse. Although no one has offered a clear definition of abuse, everyone seems to ‘know it when they see it.’ Generally only extreme cases, such as that of Awilda Lopez, come to public attention.” (126) “Clearly the factor that gets the most attention, as it relates to both parents, is the Intergenerational Transmission Hypothesis. Quite simply, this theory suggests that abuse as a child or observation of abuse of a child, is related to abuse as a parent. Another approach is the transactional model. In this model prior abuse may predispose someone to abuse but its actual occurrence depends on a host of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.” (126) “Our abuse-related filicide category is comprised of mothers whose purposeful physical assault unintentionally led to the child’s death. Most of these women had previously assaulted their child or children.” (129) “No one in our sample of mothers was an adolescent, although many were adolescents when they first bore a child.” (130) “When a child like Elisa Izquierdo dies under tragic circumstances, sweeping legislation like ASFA is often quickly enacted. The legislation does not provide a solution but a Band-Aid and often violates individual rights. All too frequently these are women’s rights.” (141) “...does the family who suffered a difficult financial time need to be monitored forever even after they have achieved financial stability? Doesn’t that violate their right to privacy? In addition, in a system which is overburdened and financially limited, how will this new monitoring be accomplished? Unfortunately, bad policies and legislation often remain in place because the people most affected by them are least able to challenge them.” (142) This chapter doesn’t have all of the scary, sad, and upsetting stories that the others did (especially the neglect chapter) which I am grateful for. After reading that, I was incredibly anxious going into this section because these continual abuse leading to death stories are the ones that have so deeply traumatized me and are the ones I can’t seem to forget (including the case I keep referring to as the “Nancy Grace story;” my mom relayed it to me and I remember almost every detail, so it would be pretty easy to look up but I’m too scared to). I think the authors knew that, going into writing this section, so they avoided relating too many traumatic stories or details to spare the readers. Instead, they focus on the possibilities for reform in schools, communities, social work programs, and welfare agencies that would make communication easier, the identification of abuse easier, and the removal of children when necessary faster and simpler. “Featherstone suggests that mothers who abuse their children are frequently viewed as either victims or villains, either totally powerless or totally powerful. Perhaps the abuse is their way of obtaining the illusion of power and control. However, mothers who kill their children, especially through abuse, represent a total lack of control and power.” (144) ...from Chapter Six (Assistance or Coercion from a Partner) Killed two-day-old daughter to spare her partner “the shame of raising another man’s child. Emiliano was seven months pregnant when she married Perez, her childhood sweetheart from their native Mexican village. Emiliano testified that her husband took the baby from her, buried it alive against her will, then assaulted and raped her, and told her not to tell anyone. She reports that she was unable to report the death because her husband kept her bound and gagged each day when he went to work. She also feared for her own safety. Both were convicted of second-degree murder.” (146-147) This seems kind of fucked considering the pressure, threats, and physical and sexual abuse from her partner. She didn’t even bury the child herself so why is she sentenced? “Such women who kill their children with the aid of a partner represent a small but significant population. As the current chapter will demonstrate, the characterization of women in this category is unlike that of women in other categories. Unique markers characterize this group of women: most notably, they tend to be involved with abusive, violent male partners during the period in which they kill their children.” (147) “This repetitive pattern of abuse the partner greatly influenced the behavior of the women in the partner-assisted category. If not for the abusiveness of the men in this sample, the children may very well still be alive. This factor alone makes the partner-assisted category very different from the other categories of maternal filicide.” (148) This is like the Nancy Grace story. The boyfriend was abusive to her and her son and when her son finally died, she just tried to help the partner cover up the crime but ended up getting in lots of trouble herself (though I don’t remember any mention of her actively abusing the boy herself, just witnessing it and doing nothing to stop it). “Our research identified twelve cases committed between 1990 and 1999 that fit the profile of partner-involved maternal filicide. We have subdivided these cases into two categories: active and passive. Five cases were assigned to the active subcategory, in which women were directly involved in their children’s deaths. Seven cases were placed in the passive category, in which women were charged with their children’s deaths due to their inability to protect their children.” (emphasis mine, 148) So this would be the mother mentioned on Nancy Grace. “The number of cases included in this category is much lower than those included in most of the other chapters in this book and is probably an underestimate of the actual number of partner-involved maternal filicides. In fact, we found multiple cases that appeared to be partner-involved but which we were unable to classify due to lack of information. We believe that the paucity in the literature with regard to partner-involved cases is noteworthy. As discussed later in this chapter, society generally holds mothers, rather than fathers, responsible for their children’s safety and wellbeing, which may increase the media’s tendency to discount father’s participation. It is likely, therefore, that some cases of partner-involved maternal filicide are either not covered by the media or are misleading because the partner’s involvement is not mentioned.” (148) This reminds me of the large example used for abuse related death (Awilda Lopez), where there was evidence of sexual/genital trauma (it said sometimes a hairbrush was used, but what about the others?) and the mother mentioned the father force-feeding the daughter snakes and poison, but no charges were put up against him. “Domestic violence theory and research indicates that there are, indeed, strong social, political, and psychological factors motivating women to stay in abusive relationships. In fact, there is much evidence to suggest that women are taught to remain in battering relationships, both through typical socialization processes and through exposure to the abuse itself.” (150) “...when a woman defies cultural expectations...she risks being chastised by others and losing her identity as a woman. Our societal expectations, then, place a tremendous burden on women who have violent partners. Although they are harshly judged and criticized for staying with a violent partner, so too are women blamed for leaving because they have ‘broken up’ their marriage or deprived their children of a father.” (150) In the cycle of violence (minor to major violence to honeymoon phase), “This honeymoon phase provides hope...It allows a battered woman to believe that her partner will change his abusive behavior. She needs this hope because a change in her partner’s behavior is the only satisfactory resolution to the situation. She will blamed whether she stays or leaves the abusive relationship. However, if the abuse were to end, her identity as a ‘good’ partner and a ‘good’ woman would be reaffirmed.” (151) “Research consistently shows that the end of a relationship is the most dangerous time for a woman and her children. Women often report that their abusive partner has threatened to harm or kill them or their children if they leave.” (152) Dad did this. I was scared every time that he drove us to the airport (even 8 years after the divorce was finalized, even sometimes when I’m with him now as an adult, living on my own) at the end of the summer that he would crash us purposefully into a ditch or a river (to a point where I had memorized the proper technique for escaping a sinking car) to get revenge on Mom. “Another possible consequence of domestic violence is increased aggressiveness on the part of the victim...Being in a chronically violent situation provides an explanation for why some battered women batter their children. As it would be incredibly unsafe for women to retaliate against their batterers, some women turn their anger and helplessness toward their children.” (152-153) “Women in the active partner-involved infanticide category are older than many women who kill their children...A second important aspect of the partner-involved filicide category is the partner’s relationship to the child. A large percentage (43 percent) of the partners in this sample were not the biological parent of the child killed...A third finding in this category is that a significant percentage of women report being abused by their partners.” (154) “The presence of a child who is not biologically their own probably serves as a powerful reminder that their female partner had previously been involved with another man. This abuse toward the child may have been related to this jealousy. The women in this category may have subtly or overtly been expected to abuse the child as well, as a way of proving their loyalty to their partner. Some women may even have abused their child in order to spare the child more severe abuse from their partners.” (156) “These cases active partner-assisted filicide are relatively infrequent. More common are situations in which women do not behave violently toward their children but are blamed for their inability to prevent their partner from abusing the children...As a culture, we blame women for these deaths. We, the authors of this book, believe that women are blamed because our culture expects a battered woman to select one of two options: leave the batterer or stop the abuse occurring within the relationship. When she is unable to do either, we hold her responsible for abuse that befalls her and her children.” (157) It’s blaming the victim ideology. And they just mentioned this ideology directly a few lines further down the page. “Society paints a rosy picture of motherhood. Mothers are supposed to be loving, self-sacrificing, and patient. Motherhood is supposed to be a woman’s greatest aspiration and women are therefore expected to protect their children under any circumstance. Fatherhood is not viewed in the same way. Although many people do not condone fathers abusing their children, a father’s primary role does not involve protecting and nurturing children. Men are allowed to have aspirations and roles beyond fatherhood. Consequently, a man who fails to protect his children is not necessarily a failure as a person. Women who ‘allow’ their children to be hurt, on the other hand, have failed at their most fundamental responsibility.” (158) Fathers are seen as disciplinary figures, though, allowing space for some anger, aggression, and even physical disciplining (e.g. spanking) which is not allowed for mothers. Being “a father,” in this way, is seen as an excusably, understandably, or inherently violent position. Think about Rusty Yates. He essentially forced Andrea to start watching the kids alone again (without doctor required supervision), which ultimately led to the drowning of her five children. He received NO inquiries about his role as a father or a protector/caretaker and no charges were drawn up against him. It wasn’t even a thought. BUT, if the roles were reversed, Andrea would have undoubtedly gone to jail for Rusty’s crimes. Similarities in common factors to those in the “active” category. Women were slightly younger on average (by about 3 years) and literally NONE of the partners involved were the biological parent of the child (compared to 43%). “These deaths were also probably the result of extreme discipling. Interestingly, however, two of the children were reported to have been almost constantly beaten and humiliated. It is not clear whether each incident was an attempt at punishment. Some of the incidents seemed to be provoked by rage and hatred toward the child, rather than the result of frustrating toileting incidents, for example.” (160) “Two of the seven women in this sample were not even present when their child was killed, yet were still blamed for not preventing the death.” (161) “The Illinois Supreme Court upheld murder convictions for two women whose boyfriends killed their children, charging that because the women allowed the abuse to occur they were responsible for the deaths. The women were not accused of delivering the abuse themselves. Defense attorneys stated that the women were not aware of the abuse, pointing out that Barbara Peters was not present when her child was killed and that Violetta Burgos did not see signs of abuse because she is legally blind. Peters received thirty years in prison and Burgos received sixty.” (161-162) HOW DID THE BLIND LADY GET TWICE THE TIME?! She legitimately has a reason by which she was unable to see the violence or even leftover signs of the violence and she’s still blamed. Great. Twice as long in prison. Justice. “In other passive partner-involved cases, women reported attempting to stop their partner from murdering their child.” Despite these circumstances, women were charged for the crime, ranging from first-degree murder to manslaughter and child endangerment. (162) “Women’s advocates argue that women are held responsible when someone else abuses or kills their child because of society’s unrealistic expectations of women, particularly with regard to their mothering role.” (162) “Women seldom receive any validation for their natural feelings of boredom, frustration, and impatience. Therefore, they feel deviant when they have such feelings and frequently keep their sentiments to themselves in an effort to prevent others from seeing what ‘bad’ mothers they really are. Depression, isolation, and helplessness may result.” (162-163) “Rather, consistent with society’s tendency to blame these women, the courts view them as passive observers with not enough love for their children to prevent the abuse.” (emphasis mine, 163) It’s odd that their passivity (usually a GREAT marker of femininity, womanliness, and proper mother/wife behavior) is turned and used against the mother, marks her as uncaring, cold, unloving, and ultimately, bad. “Many women in partner-involved cases were not the passive observers the courts consider them to be. As previously mentioned, women may stay in a relationship because they have reason to believe, often correctly, that leaving would put their children at even greater risk of harm. Rather than acting as a passive observer, many women have made a conscious choice to remain in the relationship because it appeared safer than leaving. Other women are justifiably concerned that if they were to leave the man, he would gain custody or private visitations with their children. These women often remain in a relationship because they are better able to monitor their partners’ behavior toward their children by doing so.” (164) “Perhaps the most important step in preventing the tragedy of maternal filicide, then, is a change in societal attitudes towards women. We must understand the pressures women face and work to debunk the myths of motherhood. We must stop perceiving examples of maternal filicide as isolated events. Our efforts may make it less shameful for women to ask for help and may lead to the development of more services for mothers.” (165) ...from Chapter Seven (Responding to Mothers Who Kill) “Various commentators have struggled to answer this very question. Their answers often seem to assume that infanticide is an unusual crime, committed by either a very crazy or a very evil woman. For example, Linda Chavez, president of a Washington-based think tank and director of public liaison under President Reagan, refers to women who commit infanticide as ‘''monster-women'',’ and suggests that welfare policy may be linked to infanticide.” (emphasis mine, 168) The logic is stupid but the term use is good for my topic. Look up the resource in notes. Linda Chavez, “The Tragic Story of Medea Still Lives,” Denver Post, December 3, 1995, E04. “One psychiatrist, Park Elliott Dietz, offers a theory based upon madness, arguing, ‘No amount of stress alone can account for women killing their children….It doesn’t come from who you hang out with, what your opportunities in life are or how much money you have. It comes from something being wrong with the person.’” (169) Okay, a-hole. And of course it’s a fucking crusty, old, privileged white dude saying this shit. “Both historically and today, neonaticide may be seen as a ‘mothering’ decision.” (169) “Women involved in the assisted-coerced killings of their children...tend to prioritize their present relationship with a partner over their obligations to protect their children.” (169) “The neglect-related cases of infanticide...involve mothers who are parenting under precisely the same conditions feared by the foregoing women. Alone and impoverished...they rare occasion make bad parenting decisions, and some of these decisions have devastating consequences.” (170) “What is remarkable about these cases is their gendered nature. These mothers’ babies die when they are taking care of other tasks, which are frequently also related to parenting (e.g. a baby is left in the care of an older sibling while the mother is in the kitchen cooking and arguing on the phone with the children’s father about finances). To the extent that the deaths occur when the mother is socializing, society is particularly harsh in judging her. Mothering is more than a full-time job.” (170) People were incredibly judgmental of Casey Anthony when she started partying, even though it was several months (at least, may have been well over a year) after her daughter had died. EVEN IN DEATH, a mother is expected to pour her entire self into that child. When does it end? When is it okay to move on and do things that are “normal” for a young woman? Is it ever considered okay? “Both the remaining categories of infanticide--those growing out of mental illness, and those that are abuse-related--depict the devastating results of a system that relies on a single individual to parent under these unwritten rules.” (170) “The point here is not that infanticide is excusable, but rather that it is far from ‘unthinkable.’” (171) “Because there are no federal or state statutes governing infanticide in the United States, women who commit similar offenses are tried and sentenced in wildly disparate ways, depending on the predilections of local prosecutors, judges, and juries.” (172) “Even more insidious factors such as race appear to have an impact on the administration of justice in infanticide cases.” (172-173) “Instead, the criminal justice system must ask what purposes are served by punishing these women...deterrence, both general and specific, retribution, and rehabilitation.” (174) “These services health services, parenting classes, substance abuse treatment are much more readily accessible outside prison, and judges can require a woman to obtain any or all of these services as a condition for probation. This solution, probation with counseling, is in essence what the British system requires of women who commit infanticide.” (176) “History reveals three basic societal postures toward women who kill their children--denial, punishment, or prevention. Denial...seems to have been the most popular approach.” (176) “Finally, some societies have adopted policies specifically designed to prevent infanticide. Interestingly, to the extent that these policies have been abandoned, it is due not to their failure, but to the extraordinarily high cost of their success.” (177) Note 25: “Consider, for example, the history of foundling homes...Fuchs notes that these homes, found throughout most large European towns in that era century were overwhelmed with infants. As the number of children abandoned at the homes exceeded the homes’ capacity to care for them, the governments turned instead to programs designed to provide outside aid to unwed mothers.” (211) Shows how much women need and long for these kinds of services, how ready they are to use them, and what a relief they are for them. We just need to be able to maintain them, or make them a higher priority, instead of just abandoning them as they get “too big.” “If there is one central point to this book, it is this: to the extent that we conceive of the crime of infanticide as a rare and exceptional act committed by a deranged or evil woman, we are dangerously wrong. Indeed, if this society is to have any hope of preventing the deaths of future children at the hand of their mothers, we must begin by changing our tendency to blame only the mothers for this terrible crime. We must begin to identify the myriad ways in which our society tolerates and perpetuates infanticide.” (emphasis mine, 177)